Unwittingly bought an ex-rental car and the law on this?
Discussion
You have no chance of getting your money back from the dealer, and quite frankly to even think you could having driven the car for 22,000 miles shows stupidity.
You could potentially seek compensation if you have suffered a financial loss by their non disclosure, but the onus would be on you to do so and your failure to ask a question that you now claim was material to your purchase will not count in your favour. So what did you pay for it?
You could potentially seek compensation if you have suffered a financial loss by their non disclosure, but the onus would be on you to do so and your failure to ask a question that you now claim was material to your purchase will not count in your favour. So what did you pay for it?
ging84 said:
...The oft guidance was that dealer should automatically be disclosing ex business use which might have resulted in multiple users.
...
Can you please point to the passage in the guidance you are referring to? I think that you may be mistakenly referring to a magazine article, which isn't even guidance, let alone the law. ...
Op in future when you purchase a used car from a high volume manafacturer such as Vx you would be better to assume that it has started life as hire/lease/service loan/demo/press vehicle. Vauxhall themselves register a huge number of cars each month which employees get to rag before they are sold to dealers as ex managemnet cars. Another large amount go onto the motability fleet.
There are some that are sold privately. But most of those are on PCP which dealers will take back in 3 years time and not be to interested in any damage/missed services etc because they are under so much preasure to punt another new car out the door.
There are some that are sold privately. But most of those are on PCP which dealers will take back in 3 years time and not be to interested in any damage/missed services etc because they are under so much preasure to punt another new car out the door.
baccalad said:
paintman said:
Best re-read your own post.
Next time either check it all out properly or buy a brand new one.
Which post? The book has no stamps in it? If that's what you go by when checking the service history of a car then good luck. I have several invoices and if the service history wasn't at least somewhat "satisfactory" I'm pretty sure Vauxhall wouldn't have replaced the gearbox under warranty.Next time either check it all out properly or buy a brand new one.
Had you said you had an invoice saying the oil had been changed, then that is a partial service history, for what it's worth coming from Kwik Fit...
Megaflow said:
You didn't say you had an invoice in the original post, you said you had a piece of paper saying the oil and been changed at 38,000 miles. That is not a service history.
Had you said you had an invoice saying the oil had been changed, then that is a partial service history, for what it's worth coming from Kwik Fit...
So is it a partial service history or no history or.......?Had you said you had an invoice saying the oil had been changed, then that is a partial service history, for what it's worth coming from Kwik Fit...
I'm not sure, tell us what you have...
An invoice and a stamped service book is a full service history.
An invoice and an un-stamped book is a partial service history (IMO)
A piece of paper, as in not an official invoice, and no stamp is no service history.
Either way, Breadvan is a lawyer and he says what everybody else on this thread already knows, your hopes lie somewhere in between Bob Hope and no hope...
An invoice and a stamped service book is a full service history.
An invoice and an un-stamped book is a partial service history (IMO)
A piece of paper, as in not an official invoice, and no stamp is no service history.
Either way, Breadvan is a lawyer and he says what everybody else on this thread already knows, your hopes lie somewhere in between Bob Hope and no hope...
Breadvan72 said:
Can you please point to the passage in the guidance you are referring to? I think that you may be mistakenly referring to a magazine article, which isn't even guidance, let alone the law.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402...
Page 8 examples of misleading omissions
Failing to disclose that a vehicle for sale is
an ex-business use vehicle which may have
had multiple users, for example a vehicle
that has previously been used for rental, as
a taxi or by a driving school – in such
circumstances it is not sufficient to only
inform the consumer of the mileage and
the number of previous owners.
Megaflow said:
You didn't say you had an invoice in the original post, you said you had a piece of paper saying the oil and been changed at 21,000 miles. That is not a service history.
I bought an ex lease Mazda 323 years ago. 2 1/2 years old with 104k on the clock. There wasn't a stamp in the book, just a piece of A4 paper with a list of what had been done to the car and at what mileage.Everything from wiper blades to the new exhaust was documented, and a quick glance at the car was enough for me to see that that work had been carried out.My current car is an ex lease 58 plate Golf estate, I bought it with 90k on the clock at 2 1/2 years old and the service book is full of VW dealer stamps..... yet the car was in quite a state from a service point of view, undertray missing screws, sump plug rounded off, air filter screws missing etc etc.
Service histories are very overrated , condition is everything.
ging84 said:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402...
Page 8 examples of misleading omissions
Failing to disclose that a vehicle for sale is
an ex-business use vehicle which may have
had multiple users, for example a vehicle
that has previously been used for rental, as
a taxi or by a driving school – in such
circumstances it is not sufficient to only
inform the consumer of the mileage and
the number of previous owners.
pork911 said:
Putting aside the world of wrong in your 'case' generally and you having overlooked the scope of the above guidance (see 1.5) you don't even know the car has had multiple users.
The key word here is "may". Ex-business vehicle which MAY have had multiple users. Come on it's Enterprise Rent a Car we're talking about here.pork911 said:
Putting aside the world of wrong in your 'case' generally and you having overlooked the scope of the above guidance (see 1.5) you don't even know the car has had multiple users.
Its a quote from the guidance and it was what BV asked for so im not sure why its a world of wrong. If you go back and read my post I have covered both of your points Really I'm quite disappointed in the responses I've had. You're all so quick to defend the car dealer yet it's the customer is the one who's being taken advantage of. There's a reason these laws are in place, to protect the individual, but it seems there isn't even the manpower to enforce these laws.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
Really I'm quite disappointed in the responses I've had. You're all so quick to defend the car dealer yet it's the customer is the one who's being taken advantage of. There's a reason these laws are in place, to protect the individual, but it seems there isn't even the manpower to enforce these laws.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
What I'm seeing is the typical British attitude where people will sit back and keep their mouths shut even though they aren't happy with the way something is. Just because the gearbox was replaced for me so what, what's to say that it wasn't partly a result of the car's ex-hire history. Why shouldn't I speak up and say something about it? As long as people will sit back and do nothing then dealers will and can carry on getting away with stunts like this.
Also, why wouldn't the dealer bring to my attention such an important and crucial part of the car's history? It seems like an absolute no brainer to me. And as some people have argued, if the fact that it is an ex-hire car could possibly even work in the car's favour in terms of the way it's been looked after, why doesn't the dealer say so and put their point across to me and maybe I still would've bought it and I'd have respected them more for it. And hey who knows, maybe I'd have gone back to them again for my next car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff